BOARD
RECORDS
DEPARTMENT OF
FORCORRECTti
2 NAVY ANNE
TH’E’NAVY
NAVAL
OF
X
WASHINGTON DC 20370-510
0
BJG
Docket No: 771 l-00
13 July 2001
This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the
provisi.ons of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552. You requested removal of
your failure of selection by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection
Board.
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 12 July 2001. Your allegations of error and injustice
were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the
proceedings of this
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your
application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and
In addition, the Board considered the advisory
applicable statutes, regulations and policies.
opinion furnished by Headquarters Marine Corps, dated 16 April 2001, a copy of which is
attached.
After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained
in the advisory opinion in finding that your selection by the FY 2001 Reserve Lieutenant
Colonel Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, had your record included the
fitness report in question. They had no grounds to remove your failure by the FY 2002
Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board, since they found insufficient basis to remove
your failure by the FY 2001 selection board, and the fitness report in question was in your
record for the FY 2002 board.
The names and votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon request.
In view of the above, your application has been denied.
It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be
taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new
and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this
regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official
records. Consequently, when applying for
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or
injustice.
cohection of an official naval record, the
ti
J
Sincerely,
W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS
3280 RUSSELL ROAD
QUANTICO, VIRGINIA 22134-5103
IN REPLY REFER TO:
1600
CMT
16 Apr 01
MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF
NAVAL RECORDS
Subj:
RESERVE AFFAIRS REVIEW OF FAILURE OF SELECTION ADVISORY
,
selection to Lieutenant
DD FORM 149 dtd 9 Nov 00
ce (a) and provide the following
request for removal of failure of
Colonel.
record reflects the following significant
ughout her career; Force, Leadership,
The following are
and Handling Enlisted.
Military Presence and Training Personnel.
considered lesser negative trends but still represent her
characterization of service; Routine Duties, Judgment, Handling
Officers,
and distribution has consistently been in the excellent to
excellent-outstanding block and throughout her career, she has
consistently been ranked below her peers.
fitness report (19981001-19990811) is considered a stronger
report than her previous reports,
overall tenor of her career reports.
Her overall value of service
it is not enough to change the
Although the missing
Based on the above,
3.
failure of selection.
we can find no reason to remove her
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00955-00
The Board's opinion, 4. vote, is that Report A should remain a part of Captain official military record. Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the Directed by the Commandant of the Marine Corps fitness report of 980117 to 980904. failures of selection. Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB) for removal of the Captain record and SMC Major he successfully petitioned the Duty fitness report of 940201 to 940731. requests removal of his failures of selection.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 08232-00
A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 February 2002. The member ’s statement and reporting senior ’s endorsement to his fitness report for the period 2 February 1995 to 3 1 January 1996 is filed in his record. As there is no evidence of administrative or material error in the member's record, per ref board is not warranted.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05822-01
d. Enclosure (4) is the advisory opinion from the HQMC Career Management Team (CMT) recommending denial of Petitioner ’s request to remove his failure of selection before the FY 2002 Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board. [Petitioner ’s] overall record is less than competitive when compared with his peers. directed that your Naval record will be corrected by removing therefrom the following fitness report: Having reviewed all the facts of record, the Board has Date of Report Reporting...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 06028-00
As reflected in enclosure record as he requested, but modified it by removing the following RS verbiage: qualified for promotion at this time but.. mark in item 19 from “NA” to “yes.” .” Also, as shown in enclosure (2), the HQMC PERB did not remove this report from Petitioner ’s “He is not (3), they changed the g* The fifth contested fitness report, for 28 June to 20 July 1985 (Tab E), from a third RS, also documents only that the following be deleted from the RS comments: Petitioner Is...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00899-02
The Board also considered your letter dated 4 October 2002 with enclosures. The member requests the removal of his fitness report for the 2. The fitness report itself represents the opinion of the reporting senior.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 08668-00
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that his naval record be corrected by removing or correcting the fitness report for 1 October 1996 to 12 April 1997, a copy of which is at Tab A. In enclosure (2), the Navy Personnel Command (NPC) CONCLUSION: Upon review and consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds the existence of an injustice warranting removal of the...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01974-00
It is noted that the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) has granted your requests to file a clear copy of the fitness report for 18 May 1981 to 4 February 1982, remove the reviewing officer comments from that report, and remove part of a sentence from the report for 30 March to 9 May 1983. fitness reports was requested: Removal of the a. b. Board is directing the complete removal of the Reviewing Officer comments furnished by Colonel Julian since reference contained no provision to allow...
NAVY | BCNR | CY1999 | 03672-98
He stated that since his fitness reports as a lieutenant and captain were sufficiently strong to allow him to have been promoted to major, and since his major reports are “far more competitive, ”the probability of promotion to lieutenant colonel “would be high.” Regarding his fitness report for 15 November 1985 to 28 February 1986, he stated that although it is an “annual” report, it covers only three months, during which the actual observation was only four to six calendar days. In their...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 00511-01
considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command dated 5 April, 23 July and 16 August 2001, copies of which are attached. The member requests the removal of the following fitness reports. performance and making recommendations concerning promotion and assignment are the responsibilities of the reporting senior.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 06189-00
In addition, the Board considered the advisory opinions furnished by the Navy Personnel Command, dated 22 November 2000, 15 February and 11 June 2001, and the Medical Corps Officer Community Manager dated 26 April 2001, copies of which are attached.The Board also considered your counsel’s letters dated 17 April and 18 September 2001. evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. However, this evidence, by itself, did not establish...